Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: david distefano on April 21, 2014, 01:20:02 pm
-
i will be investigating for myself within the next 6 weeks but i want a general feeling for those who have used both the p25 and p45 on a hasselblad v system camera and the hasselblad lenses (i have the 50mm,80mm,120mm,180mm all cf) for the v system. with a max print size of 20x24 and maybe 24x30 using an epson 7880 and at 240dpi,what have you seen in the final print that would be the biggest difference between the 2 backs.
-
Hi,
I have only experience with P45+. I have 40/4 CF FLE, 50/4 CF FLE, 80 CFE, 120/4 CF and 180/4 CFE. Did also have a Sonnar 150/5 CF.
The Sonnars work well, with no reservations. The other lenses are a bit weak in borders/corner. Field curvature may be the culprit.
Best regards
Erik
i will be investigating for myself within the next 6 weeks but i want a general feeling for those who have used both the p25 and p45 on a hasselblad v system camera and the hasselblad lenses (i have the 50mm,80mm,120mm,180mm all cf) for the v system. with a max print size of 20x24 and maybe 24x30 using an epson 7880 and at 240dpi,what have you seen in the final print that would be the biggest difference between the 2 backs.
-
Hi David!
I have used both on the V-system. I think you will be more happy with the P25+.
It is more easy to focus good and much less prone to flare from vibrations.
Also many of the V-lenses look sharper with the P25+.
I would never put in the extra money for the P45+.
Henrik
-
Hi David!
I have used both on the V-system. I think you will be more happy with the P25+.
It is more easy to focus good and much less prone to flare from vibrations.
Also many of the V-lenses look sharper with the P25+.
I would never put in the extra money for the P45+.
Henrik
i had the cfv-16 with the same 9 micron pixel and the images looked really good
-
The cfv16 has fantastic colors, but P25 not. Prepare to be disappointed in P25/45 colors after CFV16
-
The cfv16 has fantastic colors, but P25 not. Prepare to be disappointed in P25/45 colors after CFV16
Do you have experience with the P25 or P25+? They did not have identical color.
In what raw processing software was this experience? LR? C1v3? C1v7?
-
Do you have experience with the P25 or P25+? They did not have identical color.
In what raw processing software was this experience? LR? C1v3? C1v7?
I had only p25+ It has a better screen than in P25
IMHO both have identical color (the same kodak sensor)
May be you have to buy a dalsa sensor 22mp digital back?
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/samples_aptus-II_5.html or older )))
-
The CFV16 has same type of sensor too, just a crop, but Hasselblad's and Phase One's processning software and color profiling is different so they will yield a different end result (slight hardware differences too that affect color, but the raw software pipeline has the strongest effect). What's better will be a matter of taste. There's no universal truth that CFV16 has great colors and P25+ not. I've heard many good things about P25+ color too.
One advantage with using a P45+ than a P25+ even if you don't need the resolution is that you get less aliasing. The 9um pixel sensors can really be aliasing/moire machines at larger aperture. If you shoot landscape it's okay, but fabrics can be a nightmare. Aliasing can get pretty bad with a P45+ too, but you'll experience practical problems much less often than with the P25+. I'm basing this on what other users have reported, and my own experience with a 9um vs 7.2um back.
-
The CFV16 has same type of sensor too, just a crop, but Hasselblad's and Phase One's processning software and color profiling is different so they will yield a different end result (slight hardware differences too that affect color, but the raw software pipeline has the strongest effect). What's better will be a matter of taste. There's no universal truth that CFV16 has great colors and P25+ not. I've heard many good things about P25+ color too.
The same type of sensor? Do you mean that they are both CCD?))) The CFV16 has a square sensor the same as the "kodak pro back" and "phase one p20". But p21 and p25 have really the same sensor, but p21 is cropped by software.
-
The same type of sensor? Do you mean that they are both CCD?))) The CFV16 has a square sensor the same as the "kodak pro back" and "phase one p20". But p21 and p25 have really the same sensor, but p21 is cropped by software.
Both have Kodak 9um sensor technology. KAF-16000 (37x37mm) and KAF-22000 (37x49mm) were manufactured in the same way. There might have been some differences in CFA design though, don't know.
-
Both have Kodak 9um sensor technology. KAF-16000 (37x37mm) and KAF-22000 (37x49mm) were manufactured in the same way. There might have been some differences in CFA design though, don't know.
these two sensors have the same technology but completly different in color reproduction. These sqare sensors are fantastic (I have all of them) The 22mp sensor is just a sensor no color magic (((
-
these two sensors have the same technology but completly different in color reproduction. These sqare sensors are fantastic (I have all of them) The 22mp sensor is just a sensor no color magic (((
Ok. It's perfectly possible as there's a lot of software involved as said. I'm a bit surprised as it's the first time I hear that one's great and the other's crap :)
Raw files should be quite easy to come by, so I suggest the David look at some files before buy. There's of course also the Leaf Dalsa alternatives, the Aptus-22 and Aptus-75 and their Aptus-II versions, could be an interesting alternative, and almost certainly cheaper.
-
All medium format photographers in Russia prey on Kodak Pro back 645))) It's our native DB))) like Vodka
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2845/13357417393_9d2324a3e2_c.jpg)
-
P25+ & P45+ look very similar indeed... There are advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other but only small ones. I've tried them both on Contax 645 and on Hasselblad H2 but not on V... The (small) advantages of 45+ are:
1. It's less prone to moire... yet, you'll find that the latest version of C1 treating the issue on P25+ to an extend that one doesn't have to worry much about it anymore.
2. It has a little more (obviously) detail... but no where near what one would expect from the resolution difference in specs.
3. It's less noisy in very long exposures (more than 20 mins)... yet, P25+ is considered among the best around for the same job.
Otoh, P25+'s advantages are:
1. A little more DR after processing the files
2. It's "easier" on lenses, but as a consequence it is better when used with View/Tech cameras...
3. It's among the "best" representatives of what some people call "the fat pixel magic" (although P45+ tries hard to achieve the same look and manages to come close but not just there). Now this is difficult to explain, but it means that there is a unique "look" to the prints, ....a combination of DR, colour saturation in HLs and LLs and contrast in the mid tones, that some prefer to even modern high resolution backs.
As for large prints, if one knows how to "treat" a file well for printing, there shouldn't be an issue with either of them at much larger than what you state as required. Personally, I would go for P25+ for the "+" models... but for the P45 if it was for the older models. Actually, if I was out for a single-shot back in the 20-40mp region, I would include the Dalsa chip 33mp backs also in my consideration and perhaps rate them higher than the Kodak 39mp ones... It would either be Kodak 22mp (but not P25 "plain") or Dalsa 33mp IMO...
P.S. In contradiction to what was mentioned earlier, the IQ of P25+ is not the same as of the P25 "plain"...
-
how would a s/h leaf aptus ll either a 5,6,7 figure into the mix when compared with a p25/+.
-
The cfv16 has fantastic colors, but P25 not. Prepare to be disappointed in P25/45 colors after CFV16
What????
-
how would a s/h leaf aptus ll either a 5,6,7 figure into the mix when compared with a p25/+.
22/54/5 & 6 were never mentioned, 75/75S/7/7ii & Sinarback 75 (the Dalsa 33mp backs) have more colour accuracy than P25+, are more moire resistant and are even easier with View/Tech cameras (although pixels are smaller) because pixel depth is shallower... they are also among the best backs around for DR and are very "quite" at 400 Iso holding their DR and colour accuracy well... The look is different to the "fat pixel magic" look, but this is a matter of personal choice... "bite" can be superb on both depending on file processing, but for faithful colour accuracy, Dalsa 33mp beats even other ...(more modern) Dalsa!
-
i see that b&h sell a new leaf aptus ll 22 (fat pixel) for $7990 and the smaller sensor size leaf aptus ll 40 for $8500. how are these backs compared to the p25/+ from those who have used both. do our 2 main dealers also have these new at better prices or s/h and very good discounts.
-
i see that b&h sell a new leaf aptus ll 22 (fat pixel) for $7990 and the smaller sensor size leaf aptus ll 40 for $8500. how are these backs compared to the p25/+ from those who have used both. do our 2 main dealers also have these new at better prices or s/h and very good discounts.
Buy this leaf aptus ll 22 and I think you will not regret. As far as i understand it has the same dalsa 22mp sensor as the mamiya ZD
ZD is quite good! Also you will be able to check focus and on p45/25 focus checking is allmost impossible
ZDback
(http://album.foto.ru/photos/sm/411483/3511342.jpg) (http://album.foto.ru/photos/or/411483/3511342.jpg)
-
i see that b&h sell a new leaf aptus ll 22 (fat pixel) for $7990 and the smaller sensor size leaf aptus ll 40 for $8500. how are these backs compared to the p25/+ from those who have used both. do our 2 main dealers also have these new at better prices or s/h and very good discounts.
David... Aptus 22mp is Dalsa sensor, not Kodak... This sensor is the oldest in the Dalsa line and its look is very different to the Kodak 22mp backs. IMO, "fat pixel magic" applies only to Kodak sensor, the look of the Dalsa 22mp chip, is totally different. What one should expect by getting an Aptus 5ii, is a similar look to Aptus 7ii (look above in my previous reply), but only downgraded to all its parameters... This means: Colour is very accurate but a little less accurate than Aptus 7ii, the back is the most prone to moire one (more so than Kodak 9μm backs although pixel size is the same), low light performance is not as good as the 33mp sensor, ....Yet, the back is the most friendly with View/Tech cameras (shallow pixels again) and DR at 50 ISO is impressive, just nothing unique that the 7ii won't do equally well or better as happens with P25+ with respect to P45+.
-
LEAF APTUS II 5 raw file
I like it ))) I never got these colors from P25+
http://www.mamiyaleaf.com/images/samples/aptus-II_5/L_000555.zip
-
it looks like my choices based on the camera body and lenses that i use, i am looking at either the p25/+ which has the added feature of long exposures or the leaf aptus ll 5 db. how hard are either one to find s/h for a hasselblad v body.
-
David... Aptus 22mp is Dalsa sensor, not Kodak... This sensor is the oldest in the Dalsa line and its look is very different to the Kodak 22mp backs. IMO, "fat pixel magic" applies only to Kodak sensor, the look of the Dalsa 22mp chip, is totally different. What one should expect by getting an Aptus 5ii, is a similar look to Aptus 7ii (look above in my previous reply), but only downgraded to all its parameters... This means: Colour is very accurate but a little less accurate than Aptus 7ii, the back is the most prone to moire one (more so than Kodak 9μm backs although pixel size is the same), low light performance is not as good as the 33mp sensor, ....Yet, the back is the most friendly with View/Tech cameras (shallow pixels again) and DR at 50 ISO is impressive, just nothing unique that the 7ii won't do equally well or better as happens with P25+ with respect to P45+.
I think old manual CF lenses will not allow 33 megapixel resolution))) the same with 39megapixel kodak sensors
-
Hi,
They are good enough for 39MP at the center, may be less so in the corners. The issue may be field curvature.
Here are a bunch of raw images from the P45+/Hassy V combo (mostly). Those images may need some more sharpening. Raw images are included.
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=5
Best regards
Erik
I think old manual CF lenses will not allow 33 megapixel resolution))) the same with 39megapixel kodak sensors
-
Hi,
http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/index.php/photoarticles/80-my-mfd-journey-summing-up?start=5
Great link!
But cfe lense are not the same as cf lenses(CF are made for film and do not have the same resolution as CFE lenses)
-
The old Kodak cameras, both MF and their 35mm, is pretty good at producing a saturated "slide film" look. I've partly reversed engineered some Kodak formats so I've looked at a few files. Many like this slide film look, but if you want a more neutral/realistic rendering the Dalsa based backs seem to be a better choice. With custom color profiles I'm sure it's possible to very closely emulate any look you want, but few seem to experiment with that.
-
You see a lot of ridiculous claims on forums all the time, but the claim that this or that back has better colors is one of the funnier ones. I downloaded the aptus file above out of curiosity and I laughed out loud when I opened it. Take it from a pro that has been using a P25 for 8 years now, and almost every other significant DB and DSLR released along the way, you can pretty much get whatever colors you want from whatever you are using as long as you know what you are doing. Your colors will depend 99.99% on the light at the moment of capture and what you choose to do with the file in post.
-
I think old manual CF lenses will not allow 33 megapixel resolution))) the same with 39megapixel kodak sensors
Absolutely not, the CF or CT* lenses a great even with 60mpix. The Distagon 50mm CF Hassy is one of my favorite lenses on my Phse One system (645DF+ and P65+).
-
You see a lot of ridiculous claims on forums all the time, but the claim that this or that back has better colors is one of the funnier ones. I downloaded the aptus file above out of curiosity and I laughed out loud when I opened it. Take it from a pro that has been using a P25 for 8 years now, and almost every other significant DB and DSLR released along the way, you can pretty much get whatever colors you want from whatever you are using as long as you know what you are doing. Your colors will depend 99.99% on the light at the moment of capture and what you choose to do with the file in post.
"Better" color is kind of a tricky descriptive. It depends. In the case of "better", for a landscape shooter, this may often mean more pleasing or accurate greens out of the box, and also can be highly subjective. And a gain in greens could mean a loss in reds, so tree bark, limbs, stems, terrain, etc, might be considered worse. Or vice versa. Can a digital back produce "better" color for skin than another?
I think the bigger lesson that you're introducing is; break it down - better how? And for what?
When it comes to getting whatever colors you want out of any DB, other than for reproduction, generally speaking, I'm on the same page, but not completely. "Better" color for some, could mean better color out of the box, which negates having to do as much post for color. That resonates with quite a few people. And there are differences out of the box. Different sensor manufacturers, different IR Filters, different color conversion algorithms all affect out of the box color. In most cases, these colors can be modified (either manually or via profile creation/edit), to be very equivalent, though depending on the out of the box starting point and what you're shooting - and how objectively accurate it needs to be - this may be a more laborious process with some models than others.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
-
"Better" color is kind of a tricky descriptive. It depends. In the case of "better", for a landscape shooter, this may often mean more pleasing or accurate greens out of the box, and also can be highly subjective. And a gain in greens could mean a loss in reds, so tree bark, limbs, stems, terrain, etc, might be considered worse. Or vice versa. Can a digital back produce "better" color for skin than another?
I think the bigger lesson that you're introducing is; break it down - better how? And for what?
When it comes to getting whatever colors you want out of any DB, other than for reproduction, generally speaking, I'm on the same page, but not completely. "Better" color for some, could mean better color out of the box, which negates having to do as much post for color. That resonates with quite a few people. And there are differences out of the box. Different sensor manufacturers, different IR Filters, different color conversion algorithms all affect out of the box color. In most cases, these colors can be modified (either manually or via profile creation/edit), to be very equivalent, though depending on the out of the box starting point and what you're shooting - and how objectively accurate it needs to be - this may be a more laborious process with some models than others.
Steve Hendrix
Capture Integration
The "out of box" thing is completely arbitrary and pointless though, just a result of the hardware calibration in combination with your choice of software and profile. Don't like what you see? Just make a different profile, colors are not set in stone when you shoot digital. Also, if you shoot RAW and don't do any editing to your files you are doing something seriously wrong. RAW files are not designed to look good straight from camera, but rather contain the maximum information for you to use in your editing. You'll have to create your own preferred looks, much like choosing different films for different looks back in the day. When I first started using the P25 eight years ago, the default profiles were pretty bad, especially for skintones (this has changed dramatically over the many generations of Capture One), so I just did my own profiling and never had an issue getting what I wanted. Same goes for every other camera I've used.
For example, there's this long running myth on forums like this one that Leaf has better skintones than Phase. My entire career has been shooting mostly fashion and editorial portraits, using pretty much all the backs at some point, and I can categorically dismiss this notion. In fact, try looking at some behind the scenes footage from major fashion shoots by the very top of the top photographers in this field and you'll see that 9/10 times it's usually a Phase One back they're using, and this in a field where skintones are pretty much the number one priority when editing.
Again, I've been doing this professionally for a pretty long time now and I stand by the statement that 99.99% of your colors will depend on the light when you took the photo and your choices in post.
-
The "out of box" thing is completely arbitrary and pointless though, just a result of the hardware calibration in combination with your choice of software and profile. Don't like what you see? Just make a different profile, colors are not set in stone when you shoot digital. Also, if you shoot RAW and don't do any editing to your files you are doing something seriously wrong. RAW files are not designed to look good straight from camera, but rather contain the maximum information for you to use in your editing. You'll have to create your own preferred looks, much like choosing different films for different looks back in the day. When I first started using the P25 eight years ago, the default profiles were pretty bad, especially for skintones (this has changed dramatically over the many generations of Capture One), so I just did my own profiling and never had an issue getting what I wanted. Same goes for every other camera I've used.
For example, there's this long running myth on forums like this one that Leaf has better skintones than Phase. My entire career has been shooting mostly fashion and editorial portraits, using pretty much all the backs at some point, and I can categorically dismiss this notion. In fact, try looking at some behind the scenes footage from major fashion shoots by the very top of the top photographers in this field and you'll see that 9/10 times it's usually a Phase One back they're using, and this in a field where skintones are pretty much the number one priority when editing.
Again, I've been doing this professionally for a pretty long time now and I stand by the statement that 99.99% of your colors will depend on the light when you took the photo and your choices in post.
Oh come on! You aren't the only pro around... Accurate "Out of the box" is particularly important when it comes to skin tones... especially if one has to deal with group of people with different skin (e.g. pale caucasian with sun burned male caucasian and african at the same shot...). "Pleasing" colours may be personal, but "accurate" colours is much more subjective... I do painting reproduction via a 16x mfdb in "true colour" on daily basis... for colour accuracy in single shot nothing compares to Dalsa ....and among Dalsa, 33mp is the better of the best. ;) However, I love the "fat pixel magic" of Kodak 22mp backs and although it's not as accurate as Dalsa 33mp sensors, that is what is my preference most of the time... Yet, there others that prefer the superb skin tones of the Dalsa 33mp sensor.... who is to blame them for that or falsely claim in public that they may achieve the same accuracy using a punchier sensor, with larger linear part and more colour saturation which favours a "colder" presentation as Kodak 22mp sensors do?
"More pleasing"... that I can accept... but "the same accurate"? ...no way! The Kodak 22mp sensors are legendary for their "fat pixel magic" and they worth it for that "magic" which is present and real! The Dalsa 33mp sensors OTOH, are legendary for their accuracy ...and their legend worths every bit of it! ...it's a matter of preference, can't you see? ....it's not some kind of battle!
-
Hi,
Some CFE lenses are new designs, like the 40/4 FLE IF. Another lens that stands out is the Planar 100/3.5, but I don't think it is a new design.
Here is a page with Zeiss data sheets for almost all lenses: http://www.hasselbladhistorical.eu/HW/HWLds.aspx
You can see that MTF data are essentially identical between CF and CFi/CFE series.
But there may be differences that doesn't show in MTF plots, like better control of ghots/flare.
I have upgraded some of my lenses to CFE/CFi, but I have no clear idea of possible improvements.
Best regards
Erik
Great link!
But cfe lense are not the same as cf lenses(CF are made for film and do not have the same resolution as CFE lenses)